The Patiala House Court in Delhi has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of 28-year-old Mumbai-based journalist Varun Hiremath, accused of raping a 22-year-old woman, reported The Indian Express on Wednesday. The court, in a ruling on March 12, said that consent cannot be implicit from the complainant’s previous sexual encounter with the accused.

In a complaint and statement before a magistrate, the woman alleged that Hiremath had raped her at a five-star hotel in Delhi’s Chanakyapuri area on February 20. After a first information report was registered, the journalist was absconding since February 23, according to the newspaper.

Hiremath was charged under Indian Penal Code Sections 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) on the basis of the woman’s complaint at the Chanakyapuri police station.

Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Khanagwal heard the journalist’s anticipatory bail plea on March 12. “Although WhatsApp and Instagram chats has not been specifically denied from the side of the prosecution but despite the fact that accused and prosecutrix [a female prosecutor] were having [a] loving relationship and they...indulged in sexual explicit talks that [is] also not going to make any difference at this stage in view of section 53-(a) of Indian Evidence Act...” the court observed, according to The Indian Express. The judge noted that the “section provides that evidence of character or previous sexual experiences not relevant in certain cases including the offence under section 376 [rape] and this provision specifically shows that previous sexual experiences with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or quality of consent”.

The court said the observation that the woman’s previous experiences with the journalist cannot be considered as implicit consent was buttressed on Section 114 A of the Indian Evidence Act, according to the newspaper. The court noted that this section deals with the “presumption as to the absence of consent of certain cases for the rape and if sexual intercourse by the accused is proved”.

On the question of consent, the court cited the woman’s statement refuting the accused’s version and said that it would therefore “presume that she did not consent”, reported The Indian Express. It also noted that the contradictions pointed out by the accused’s counsel were not sufficient to disbelieve the woman’s version.

Hiremath’s counsel, advocate Sandeep Kaur, claimed in court that the events that occurred on February 20 were consensual, and that he was being wrongly implicated. However, the complainant’s lawyers submitted that she had not consented to any sexual activities with the man. “When they were passing through the lobby of the hotel room, even at that time the prosecutrix [the woman] has denied the offer of the accused, merely going into the room of the hotel with the accused does not show her intention to indulge in sexual activities with him,” the counsel said.

“Considering the nature of [the] accusation made against the accused, evidence collected by the IO [investigating officer] against him and the facts and circumstances, the gravity of offence and discussion made hereinabove, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused,” the judge said, reported The Wire.

The judge also highlighted that the WhatsApp chats between the two indicated there was a feeling of remorse from the accused. “WhatsApp chats of [the] accused and [woman] on the day of offence after commission of offence which are of· evening time from 8:30 pm onwards, same are indicating towards the feeling of sorry by the accused of his acts,” the court said in its order, The Wire reported.

The court order also noted that the complainant feared of injury if she tried to escape from the hotel room. “Therefore, she bow[ed] down to the forcible demands of the accused,” the ruling read, according to The Indian Express. “She has also stated that she always resisted the act of accused...”

On March 1, a single bench of the Bombay High Court heard Hiremath’s transit anticipatory bail plea and rejected it on the same day, Live Law reported.